| Country | Number of requests | Percentage of requests where some or all information was produced | Number of accounts specified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Australia | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Brazil | 1* | 100% | 1 |
| Canada | 2 | 50% | 2 |
| Chile | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| France | 5 | 0% | 5 |
| Germany | 2 | 0% | 2 |
| Hungary | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| India | 14 | 0% | 1 |
| India | 7 | 0% | 17 |
| Italy | 6 | 0% | 5 |
| Portugal | 3 | 0% | 1 |
| Spain | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| United States | 77* | 92% | 86 |
| Total | 116 | 63% | 125 |
| Subpoenas | Court Orders | Search Warrants | Wiretap Orders | Pen Register Orders | Emergency Requests |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79% | 10% | 10% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Recent Examples
Here are a few recent examples of requests for user information that we received from government sources. We did not provide information in response to any of these requests.
Germany
- A police department in Nuremberg requested user information for a website which they claimed to contain “negative, wrong, and defamatory” remarks. Their request was not accompanied by any valid legal process which deemed the content to be defamatory or which ordered us to turn over user information.
India
- Cyber police requested information about a number of users who published an individual’s photograph in a journalistic context. There were no references to copyright infringement in their request and it did not include valid legal process.
Italy
- A police department in Milan asked us to turn over user information “for judicial police investigations.” They provided no additional context, explanation, or valid legal process. They also asked that we not disclose their request to the user, but never confirmed that they had obtained a nondisclosure order via a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty as outlined in our Legal Guidelines.
Transparency Report 